Read Ebook: The Principle of Relativity by Einstein Albert Minkowski H Hermann Mahalanobis P C Prasanta Chandra Author Of Introduction Etc Bose Satyendranath Translator Saha Meghnad Translator

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 749 lines and 77353 words, and 15 pages

Transcriber's Note:

Some are so complex that they must be rendered in the TeX mathematical notation, enclosed between double dollar signs, like this:

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Ten years later, in 1905, we find Einstein declaring that "the ether will be proved to be superfluous." At first sight the revolution in scientific thought brought about in the course of a single decade appears to be almost too violent. A more careful even though a rapid review of the subject will, however, show how the Theory of Relativity gradually became a historical necessity.

Towards the beginning of the nineteenth century, the luminiferous ether came into prominence as a result of the brilliant successes of the wave theory in the hands of Young and Fresnel. In its stationary aspect the elastic solid ether was the outcome of the search for a medium in which the light waves may "undulate." This stationary ether, as shown by Young, also afforded a satisfactory explanation of astronomical aberration. But its very success gave rise to a host of new questions all bearing on the central problem of relative motion of ether and matter.

Airy, in 1871 filled up a telescope with water--but failed to detect any change in the aberration. Thus we get both in the case of Arago prism experiment and Airy-Boscovitch water-telescope experiment, the very startling result that optical effects in a moving medium seem to be quite independent of the velocity of the medium with respect to Fresnel's stationary ether.

In the Michelson-Morley experiment the arrangement is quite different. If there is a definite gap in a rigid body, light waves situated in free ether will take a definite time in crossing the gap. If the rigid platform carrying the gap is set in motion with respect to the ether in the direction of light propagation, light waves should presumably take a longer time to cross the gap.

We cannot do better than quote Eddington's description of this famous experiment. "The principle of the experiment may be illustrated by considering a swimmer in a river. It is easily realized that it takes longer to swim to a point 50 yards up-stream and back than to a point 50 yards across-stream and back. If the earth is moving through the ether there is a river of ether flowing through the laboratory, and a wave of light may be compared to a swimmer travelling with constant velocity relative to the current. If, then, we divide a beam of light into two parts, and send one-half swimming up the stream for a certain distance and then back to the starting point, and send the other half an equal distance across stream and back, the across-stream beam should arrive back first.

where

a factor greater than unity.

But when the experiment was tried, it was found that both parts of the beam took the same time, as tested by the interference bands produced."

After a most careful series of observations, Michelson and Morley failed to detect the slightest trace of any effect due to earth's motion through ether.

Apart from these experimental discrepancies, grave theoretical objections were urged against a viscous ether. Stokes himself had shown that his ether must be incompressible and all motion in it differentially irrotational, at the same time there should be absolutely no slipping at the surface of separation. Now all these conditions cannot be simultaneously satisfied for any conceivable material medium without certain very special and arbitrary assumptions. Thus Stokes' ether failed to satisfy the very motive which had led Stokes to formulate it, namely, the desirability of constructing a "physical" medium. Planck offered modified forms of Stokes' theory which seemed capable of being reconciled with the Michelson-Morley experiment, but required very special assumptions. The very complexity and the very arbitrariness of these assumptions prevented Planck's ether from attaining any degree of practical importance in the further development of the subject.

The sole criterion of the value of any scientific theory must ultimately be its capacity for offering a simple, unified, coherent and fruitful description of observed facts. In proportion as a theory becomes complex it loses in usefulness--a theory which is obliged to requisition a whole array of arbitrary assumptions in order to explain special facts is practically worse than useless, as it serves to disjoin, rather than to unite, the several groups of facts. The optical experiments of the last quarter of the nineteenth century showed the impossibility of constructing a simple ether theory, which would be amenable to analytic treatment and would at the same time stimulate further progress. It should be observed that it could scarcely be shown that no logically consistent ether theory was possible; indeed in 1910, H. A. Wilson offered a consistent ether theory which was at least quite neutral with respect to all available optical data. But Wilson's ether is almost wholly negative--its only virtue being that it does not directly contradict observed facts. Neither any direct confirmation nor a direct refutation is possible and it does not throw any light on the various optical phenomena. A theory like this being practically useless stands self-condemned.

We must now consider the problem of relative motion of ether and matter from the point of view of electrical theory. From 1860 the identity of light as an electromagnetic vector became gradually established as a result of the brilliant "displacement current" hypothesis of Clerk Maxwell and his further analytical investigations. The elastic solid ether became gradually transformed into the electromagnetic one. Maxwell succeeded in giving a fairly satisfactory account of all ordinary optical phenomena and little room was left for any serious doubts as regards the general validity of Maxwell's theory. Hertz's researches on electric waves, first carried out in 1886, succeeded in furnishing a strong experimental confirmation of Maxwell's theory. Electric waves behaved generally like light waves of very large wave length.

The orthodox Maxwellian view located the dielectric polarisation in the electromagnetic ether which was merely a transformation of Fresnel's stagnant ether. The magnetic polarisation was looked upon as wholly secondary in origin, being due to the relative motion of the dielectric tubes of polarisation. On this view the Fresnelian convection coefficient comes out to be 1/2 , as shown by J. J. Thomson in 1880, instead of 1 - as required by optical experiments. This obviously implies a complete failure to account for all those optical experiments which depend for their satisfactory explanation on the assumption of a value for the convection coefficient equal to 1 - .

The modifications proposed independently by Hertz and Heaviside fare no better. They postulated the actual medium to be the seat of all electric polarisation and further emphasised the reciprocal relation subsisting between electricity and magnetism, thus making the field equations more symmetrical. On this view the whole of the polarised ether is carried away by the moving medium, and consequently, the convection coefficient naturally becomes unity in this theory, a value quite as discrepant as that obtained on the original Maxwellian assumption.

Thus neither Maxwell's original theory nor its subsequent modifications as developed by Hertz and Heaviside succeeded in obtaining a value for Fresnelian coefficient equal to 1 - , and consequently stood totally condemned from the optical point of view.

Certain direct electromagnetic experiments involving relative motion of polarised dielectrics were no less conclusive against the generalised theory of Hertz and Heaviside. According to Hertz a moving dielectric would carry away the whole of its electric displacement with it. Hence the electromagnetic effect near the moving dielectric would be proportional to the total electric displacement, that is to K, the specific inductive capacity of the dielectric. In 1901, Blondlot working with a stream of moving gas could not detect any such effect. H. A. Wilson repeated the experiment in an improved form in 1903 and working with ebonite found that the observed effect was proportional to K - 1 instead of to K. For gases K is nearly equal to 1 and hence practically no effect will be observed in their case. This gives a satisfactory explanation of Blondlot's negative results.

Rowland had shown in 1876 that the magnetic force due to a rotating condenser was proportional to K, the sp. ind. cap. On the other hand, R?ntgen found in 1888 the magnetic effect due to a rotating dielectric to be proportional to K - 1, and not to K. Finally Eichenwald in 1903 found that when both condenser and dielectric are rotated together, the effect observed was quite independent of K, a result quite consistent with the two previous experiments. The Rowland effect proportional to K, together with the opposite R?ntgen effect proportional to 1 - K, makes the Eichenwald effect independent of K.

All these experiments together with those of Blondlot and Wilson made it clear that the electromagnetic effect due to a moving dielectric was proportional to K - 1, and not to K as required by Hertz's theory. Thus the above group of experiments with moving dielectrics directly contradicted the Hertz-Heaviside theory. The internal discrepancies inherent in the classic ether theory had now become too prominent. It was clear that the ether concept had finally outgrown its usefulness. The observed facts had become too contradictory and too heterogeneous to be reduced to an organised whole with the help of the ether concept alone. Radical departures from the classical theory had become absolutely necessary.

There were several outstanding difficulties in connection with anomalous dispersion, selective reflection and selective absorption which could not be satisfactory explained in the classic electromagnetic theory. It was evident that the assumption of some kind of discreteness in the optical medium had become inevitable. Such an assumption naturally gave rise to an atomic theory of electricity, namely, the modern electron theory. Lorentz had postulated the existence of electrons so early as 1878, but it was not until some years later that the electron theory became firmly established on a satisfactory basis.

Lorentz assumed that a moving dielectric merely carried away its own "polarisation doublets," which on his theory gave rise to the induced field proportional to K - 1. The field near a moving dielectric is naturally proportional to K - 1 and not to K. Lorentz's theory thus gave a satisfactory explanation of all those experiments with moving dielectrics which required effects proportional to K - 1. Lorentz further succeeded in obtaining a value for the Fresnelian convection coefficient equal to 1 - 1/?^2, the exact value required by all optical experiments of the moving type.

We must now go back to Michelson and Morley's experiment. We have seen that both parts of the beam are situated in free ether; no material medium is involved in any portion of the paths actually traversed by the beam. Consequently no compensation due to Fresnelian convection of ether by moving medium is possible. Thus Fresnelian convection compensation can have no possible application in this case. Yet some marvellous compensation has evidently taken place which has completely masked the "absolute" velocity of the earth.

These results were already reached by Lorentz in the course of further developments of his electron theory. Lorentz used a special set of transformation equations for time which implicitly introduced the concept of local time. But he himself failed to attach any special significance to it, and looked upon it rather as a mere mathematical artifice like imaginary quantities in analysis or the circle at infinity in projective geometry. The originality of Einstein at this stage consists in his successful physical interpretation of these results, and viewing them as the coherent organised consequences of a single general principle. Lorentz established the Relativity Theorem while Einstein generalised it into a Universal Principle. In addition Einstein introduced fundamentally new concepts of space and time, which served to destroy old fetishes and demanded a wholesale revision of scientific concepts and thus opened up new possibilities in the synthetic unification of natural processes.

Newton had framed his laws of motion in such a way as to make them quite independent of the absolute velocity of the earth. Uniform relative motion of ether and matter could not be detected with the help of dynamical laws. According to Einstein neither could it be detected with the help of optical or electromagnetic experiments. Thus the Einsteinian Principle of Relativity asserts that all physical laws are independent of the 'absolute' velocity of an observer.

On this interpretation, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and "local time" lose their arbitrary character. Space and time as measured by two different observers are naturally diverse, and the difference depends only on their relative motion. Both are equally valid; they are merely different descriptions of the same physical reality. This is essentially the point of view adopted by Minkowski. He considers time itself to be one of the co-ordinate axes, and in his four-dimensional world, that is in the space-time reality, relative motion is reduced to a rotation of the axes of reference. Thus, the diversity in the measurement of lengths and temporal rates is merely due to the static difference in the "frame-work" of the different observers.

The above theory of Relativity absorbed practically the whole of the electromagnetic theory based on the Maxwell-Lorentz system of field equations. It combined all the advantages of classic Maxwellian theory together with an electronic hypothesis. The Lorentz assumption of polarisation doublets had furnished a satisfactory explanation of the Fresnelian convection of ether, but in the new theory this is deduced merely as a consequence of the altered concept of relative velocity. In addition, the theory of Relativity accepted the results of Michelson and Morley's experiments as a definite principle, namely, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, so that there was nothing left for explanation in the Michelson-Morley experiment. But even more than all this, it established a single general principle which served to connect together in a simple coherent and fruitful manner the known facts of Physics.

We have now traced the history of the development of the restricted or special theory of Relativity, which is mainly concerned with optical and electrical phenomena. It was first offered by Einstein in 1905. Ten years later, Einstein formulated his second theory, the Generalised Principle of Relativity. This new theory is mainly a theory of gravitation and has very little connection with optics and electricity. In one sense, the second theory is indeed a further generalisation of the restricted principle, but the former does not really contain the latter as a special case.

Thus it may become possible to "transform away" gravitational effects, at least for sufficiently small regions of space, by referring all movements to a new set of axes. This new "framework" may of course have all kinds of very complicated movements when referred to the old Galilean or "rectangular unaccelerated system of co-ordinates."

But there is no reason why we should look upon the Galilean system as more fundamental than any other. If it is found simpler to refer all motion in a gravitational field to a special set of co-ordinates, we may certainly look upon this special "framework" , to be more fundamental and more natural. We may, still more simply, identify this particular framework with the special local properties of space in that region. That is, we can look upon the effects of a gravitational field as simply due to the local properties of space and time itself. The very presence of matter implies a modification of the characteristics of space and time in its neighbourhood. As Eddington says "matter does not cause the curvature of space-time. It is the curvature. Just as light does not cause electromagnetic oscillations; it is the oscillations."

We have seen that Einstein's theory requires local curvature of space-time in the neighbourhood of matter. Such altered characteristics of space and time give a satisfactory explanation of an outstanding discrepancy in the observed advance of perihelion of Mercury. The large discordance is almost completely removed by Einstein's theory.

Again, in an intense gravitational field, a beam of light will be affected by the local curvature of space, so that to an observer who is referring all phenomena to a Newtonian system, the beam of light will appear to deviate from its path along an Euclidean straight line.

This famous prediction of Einstein about the deflection of a beam of light by the sun's gravitational field was tested during the total solar eclipse of May, 1919. The observed deflection is decisively in favour of the Generalised Theory of Relativity.

Einstein has proposed a third crucial test. He has predicted a shift of spectral lines towards the red, due to an intense gravitational potential. Experimental difficulties are very considerable here, as the shift of spectral lines is a complex phenomenon. Evidence is conflicting and nothing conclusive can yet be asserted. Einstein thought that a gravitational displacement of the Fraunhofer lines is a necessary and fundamental condition for the acceptance of his theory. But Eddington has pointed out that even if this test fails, the logical conclusion would seem to be that while Einstein's law of gravitation is true for matter in bulk, it is not true for such small material systems as atomic oscillator.

Conclusion

The measurements of the rotation of the earth reveals a fundamental framework which may be called the "inertial framework." This constitutes the actual physical universe. This universe approaches Galilean space-time at a great distance from matter.

The properties of this physical universe may be referred to some world-distribution of matter or the "inertial framework" may be constructed by a suitable modification of the law of gravitation itself. In Einstein's theory the actual curvature of the "inertial framework" is referred to vast quantities of undetected world-matter. It has interesting consequences. The dimensions of Einsteinian universe would depend on the quantity of matter in it; it would vanish to a point in the total absence of matter. Then again curvature depends on the quantity of matter, and hence in the presence of a sufficient quantity of matter space-time may curve round and close up. Einsteinian universe will then reduce to a finite system without boundaries, like the surface of a sphere. In this "closed up" system, light rays will come to a focus after travelling round the universe and we should see an "anti-sun" at a point in the sky opposite to the real sun. This anti-sun would of course be equally large and equally bright if there is no absorption of light in free space.

In de Sitter's theory, the existence of vast quantities of world-matter is not required. But beyond a definite distance from an observer, time itself stands still, so that to the observer nothing can ever "happen" there. All these theories are still highly speculative in character, but they have certainly extended the scope of theoretical physics to the central problem of the ultimate nature of the universe itself.

One outstanding peculiarity still attaches to the concept of electric force--it is not amenable to any process of being "transformed away" by a suitable change of framework. H. Weyl, it seems, has developed a geometrical theory in which no fundamental distinction is made between gravitational and electrical forces.

P. C. MAHALANOBIS.

Note A.

For example consider a massive particle resting on a circular disc. If we set the disc rotating, a centrifugal force appears in the field. On the other hand, if we transform to a set of rotating axes, we must introduce a centrifugal force in order to correct for the change of axes. This newly introduced centrifugal force is usually looked upon as a mathematical fiction--as "geometrical" rather than physical. The presence of such a geometrical force is usually interpreted as being due to the adoption of a fictitious framework. On the other hand a gravitational force is considered quite real. Thus a fundamental distinction is made between geometrical and gravitational forces.

In the General Theory of Relativity, this fundamental distinction is done away with. The very possibility of distinguishing between geometrical and gravitational forces is denied. All axes of reference may now be regarded as equally valid.

In the Restricted Theory, all "unaccelerated" axes of reference were recognised as equally valid, so that physical laws were made independent of uniform absolute velocity. In the General Theory, physical laws are made independent of "absolute" motion of any kind.

Footnote 1:

See Note 1.

Footnote 2:

See Note 2.

Footnote 3:

See Note 4.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet